Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

SPE 109555

Reservoir Technical Limits: A Framework for Maximizing Recovery From Oil Fields
P. Craig Smalley, SPE, Bill Ross, SPE, Chris E. Brown, SPE, Tim P. Moulds, SPE, and Mike J. Smith, SPE, BP

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers


barrels. Case studies demonstrate the effectiveness of RTL in
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and stimulating activity in individual fields and focusing corporate
Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 1114 November 2007.
technology resources into high-impact areas.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
The RTL framework is a significant innovation towards
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to increased recovery factors. It is a new medium to focus the
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at talent of the asset team onto life-of-field value, generating an
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
opportunity set of real activities that the team can start to
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is progress immediately.
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Introduction
When oil companies are given stewardship of valuable
Abstract subsurface oil resources, maximizing recovery of that resource
Maximizing recovery is an important part of responsible asset is an important aspect of responsible asset management. At a
management and of optimizing value from an incumbent time of high oil price, and high access price to new resources
resource position. BPs Reservoir Technical Limits (RTLTM) or exploration acreage, never has it been more advantageous to
process has proved highly effective at estimating oilfield leverage value from a companys or a nations incumbent
maximum recovery potential and identifying/prioritizing resource position by increasing oil recovery to its maximum
specific activities to help deliver it. This paper describes the potential. But what is that maximum potential and how can it
process and examples of how it has worked and can be be attained? It is a sobering fact that, despite the ever-
applied. advancing wave of new technologies, recovery factors for the
RTL incorporates a conceptual framework with supporting vast majority of oil fields are still languishing below 40%.
software, designed to stimulate and structure a conversation Intuitively, we know we should be able to improve on that
with the asset team in a workshop environment. Key but what specific activities need to be initiated in individual
ingredients are: in-depth knowledge/experience of the cross- fields to begin pushing recovery factor towards its ultimate
disciplinary asset team; trained facilitation; cross-fertilization potential? Is it all about new technologies? What role does
from external technical experts; a toolkit to encourage better application of existing technologies play?
innovation in a structured and reproducible manner. The RTL BPs Reservoir Technical Limits (RTLTM) approach,
framework represents recovery factor as the product of four developed over the last 5 years, has proved highly effective in
efficiency factors: Pore-Scale Displacement (microscopic determining the maximum recovery potential of an oil field
efficiency of the recovery process); Drainage (connectedness and identifying and prioritizing specific activities that will
to a producer); Sweep (movement of oil to producers within help increase recovery towards that ultimate target. This paper
the drained volume); Cut-offs (losses related to end of field aims to outline the approach and provide some examples of
life/access). Increasing recovery involves trying to increase the benefits. A subsequent paper will outline the application
all of these efficiency factors. RTL builds upon the of the RTL approach to gas fields.
opportunity set already contained in the Depletion Plan. New
opportunities are identified systematically by comparing The Reservoir Technical Limits Concept
current/expected efficiency values with data from high- Trying to determine the ultimate life-of-field recovery
performing analogue fields, seeding ideas with checklists of potential of an oil field involves a number of key ingredients,
previously successful pre-screened activities. The identified some of which have a natural tension between them. Depth of
opportunities are prioritized based on size, cost, risk, timing technical knowledge of the oil field is critical; but breadth of
and technology stretch, and then validated by recovery factor experience of other fields and what worked for them is also
benchmarking: (a) internally, comparing bottom-up (summing crucial. It is important that the latest technologies are
opportunity volumes) and top-down (from efficiencies) values; represented, and that real innovation is encouraged to come up
and (b) externally, by comparison with analogue fields. with creative new ideas; but, on the other hand, the process
The result is a prioritized list of validated opportunities and needs to be focused and efficient, with the outputs being
an understanding of how each activity affects the reservoir to consistent and reproducible. The process should involve true
increase recovery. The activities (and any required new creativity, yet the ideas should be quality-controlled not so
technologies) are valued in terms of the resultant incremental fanciful that they are never likely to be implemented.
2 SPE 109555

These varied ingredients have been synthesized into a highly RTL Review Workshop. This cross-disciplinary workshop is
efficient process, delivered through a workshop-style event the main vehicle for applying the RTL process. In this forum,
called an RTL Review that involves the following: the asset team brings to the table a deep understanding of their
oil field, the development story do far, the reservoir
1. Application of pre-screening tools to pre-populate a mechanisms and so forth, based on their experience and a
list of potentially applicable technologies wealth of deep technical studies. This understanding will have
2. The right people. The RTL Review workshop been developed using extensive surveillance, advanced
combines the asset team, external technical experts reservoir modelling and visualization. Other attendees are
specially trained facilitation. specially selected technical experts from outside of the asset,
3. Use of an RTL Framework, where recovery factor who will bring experience from other fields as well as the
is broken down into four component efficiency latest technology perspectives. Both the asset team and the
factors. external attendees are cross-disciplinary, representing
4. A good understanding of the Base: consensus on subsurface, drilling and completions, facilities, commercial etc
what the field has delivered so far and how and as appropriate for the field in question.
would deliver if the activities in the current depletion In many cases, bringing the team together with the time
plan were implemented. and space to focus on the full life-of-field value of the asset is
5. Generation of new ideas Opportunities that could all that is needed to precipitate an excellent discussion of
increase recovery compared to the current depletion future growth activities. The RTL approach capitalizes on this
plan, generated by applying novel group innovation knowledge and enthusiasm by harnessing it and focusing it to
techniques, focused by specially-trained RTL identify a full and thorough opportunity set. The use of a
facilitators. specially-trained RTL-facilitator is important in realizing these
6. Opportunity description and preliminary goals.
prioritization, based on doability and timescale. To optimize the quality of technical discussion, a field may
7. Quality control of the new opportunity set by using be subdivided into different segments/units based on their
an internal consistency check based on the efficiency character and the recovery processes being used in each; these
factors and through external benchmarking based on subvolumes may be considered separately and subsequently
global analogue data. recombined to give a field-wide RTL view. In this way, the
8. A proprietary toolkit that facilitates steps 1-7, and RTL approach can handle multiple recovery processes
enables the results to be captured, analyzed and deployed independently in different subvolumes of a field or
presented in a consistent format. The opportunity set simultaneously in the same subvolumes.
then passes into the next stage of technical work
opportunity progression. RTL Efficiency Factor Framework. The RTL framework
represents oil recovery factor as the product of four efficiency
The following sections describe how these steps are factors (Fig. 1). The purpose of using the efficiency factors is
implemented in practice. Subsequent sections deal with some to understand the broad controls on recovery factor in the
examples to illustrate the benefits. field, and to be able to link these with efficiency-improving
practices specific to each factor. The efficiency factor
TM
Application of the RTL process framework is an extension of the approach often used in
Pre-screening. Screening criteria have long been used to classical reservoir engineering (e.g. Dawe, 2000).
determine whether a reservoir is suitable for the application of
various technologies IOR processes for example (e.g. Al- Pore-Scale Displacement Efficiency (Eps). Microscopic
Bahar et al., 2004; Taber et al., 1997a and 1997b). Such efficiency of the recovery process. This would be the
criteria, based on the degree of fit between the reservoir/fluid theoretical maximum recovery factor if the recovery process
properties of the field in question and the critical success could be applied perfectly throughout the whole field, to the
factors for the process, can be applied using different threshold same degree that it could in a laboratory core sample. It is a
values to create different levels of screening. The RTL function of the recovery process and how it interplays with
process is designed to foster creativity and innovation, so it is pore-scale mineralogy, geometry, chemistry and fluid
not the intent of the pre-screening step to stifle discussion by characteristics. Depending on the reservoir characteristics Eps
over-zealously screening out opportunities. Rather, the idea is can vary from <20% for oil fields on depletion, through 50-
to screen-in opportunities by using coarse screening criteria, 80% for high quality waterfloods, to >90% in miscible gas
such that only the really inappropriate ones are lost. injection projects. It parallels the maximum reduction in oil
Screening criteria have been developed based on a saturation for each recovery process.
combination of published data and new in-house criteria. The
criteria have been rigorously tested using BPs extensive in- Drainage Efficiency (Ed). Connectedness to a producing well.
house reservoir property database representing many hundreds If a part of the reservoir is pressure-connected to a producing
of reservoirs. The screening criteria can be applied prior to an well on a production timescale, it would be counted as
RTL workshop using data for the field in question already connected (Fig. 1). In many mature fields this efficiency
available in the database. The RTL discussion is thus primed factor is close to 1. Situations where it could be lower might
to start on a positive note, with a list of new ideas that might include phased developments, where a decision was made not
work. to develop the whole oil volume at once, or
SPE 109555 3

compartmentalization, where parts of the reservoir are isolated The Base efficiency factors for oil fields vary greatly. In
from producing wells by pressure and fluid flow barriers. general, Ed and Ec are high in mature fields (unless Ec is
artificially reduced by issues related to commercial terms,
Sweep efficiency (Es). Movement of oil to producers within such as license expiry). Ep and Es are usually where the
the drained volume, as a function of the proportion of the greatest remaining prizes lay (e.g. Fig. 3).
reservoir contacted by the injected fluid. Total volumetric
sweep is considered here, but this is frequently broken down Creation of New Opportunities. The starting point for new
into areal and vertical sweep efficiencies for greater clarity. ideas is the efficiency factors identified for the Base.
The volumetric sweep efficiency is an overall effect of the Opportunity creation involves a structured but creative
injection point pattern and spacing, injection rate, reservoir conversation about the various activities that could be
aspect ratio, reservoir permeability heterogeneity, fractures, employed to push each efficiency factor in turn towards their
position of gas-oil or oil-water contacts, mobility ratio, density maximum. The focus is on those factors displaying the
contrasts between the injected and reservoir fluids etc. This is biggest potential prize. Various structured brainstorming
one of the most difficult efficiency factors to quantify; in BP techniques may be employed by the trained facilitator, as
proprietary simulation codes are used for estimating and appropriate for the field in question. Potential opportunities
visualizing sweep. that might be discussed would include those that have passed
the pre-screening process described earlier, plus other
Cut-offs efficiency (Ec). Loss of recovery related to end of activities that are typically used to improve the efficiencies.
field life/access. This is where the time dimension is taken Some examples are given below.
into account. In most fields after plateau, production Ed: Waterflooding, enhanced waterflooding (including
gradually tails off, often with decreasing oil production BPs LoSalTM waterflooding process Webb et al., 2004;
matched by increasing water production and operating costs Jerauld et al., 2006) , immiscible gas injection, miscible gas
per oil barrel. Actual production will usually cease before the injection, blowdown, microbial EOR, wettability modifiers,
theoretical maximum production volume is reached, as viscosity modifiers etc.
calculated from the asymptotic production profile. This loss Ed: Infill drilling, recompletions, sidetracks, extended-
of the production tail is represented by Ec, which is 1- the reach wells etc.
fraction lost. Here we consider only the overall cut-offs Es: Offtake management; infill wells, sidetracks, fracs;
efficiency, though for increased clarity this may be broken into water/gas shut off, Bright Water (e.g. Frampton et al., 2004;
3 efficiency sub-factors related to the three main mechanisms Yaez et al., 2007), wellwork, intelligent completions etc.
that cause field production to cease: (1) Energy, where the Ec: Artificial lift, facilities upgrades, renegotiate
reservoir is sufficiently depleted that the wells are not able to commercial framework, capture of nearby production,
flow effectively; (2) Facilities, where facilities are either infrastructure-led exploration, gas storage etc.
stretched beyond their design capabilities (e.g. water/oil or
gas/oil limits) or reach the end of their safe operating lifetime Opportunity Description and Prioritization. Each of the
and cost/benefit does not support renewal of facilities; and (3) opportunities identified are described in a consistent way,
Commercial, where the end of a license agreement means that including name, verbal description of activity involved,
production ends prematurely at least for the company expected resource volume, time scale, which efficiency factor
holding the expiring license. is being improved, likely cost per barrel, probability of
These efficiency factors have been carefully designed to success, key risks, technical challenges/barriers, possible
relate to specific types of activities that could become technical solutions and an action plan. Based on these
opportunities for reserves growth. descriptors, the opportunities are assigned to one of 4
groupings:
Defining the Base. The first step to building a good Options: Opportunities that are well defined, economic,
opportunity set is to define its foundation. The Base and can be implemented in the short term (within a year).
consists of oil that has been produced already, plus oil that is Note that this does not mean that the opportunity will be
expected to be produced from activities that have already been implemented on that time scale that is the outcome of
committed to as part of the depletion plan. The understanding subsequent technical work and commercial decisions simply
of the reservoir possessed by the field team is used here to that it could be, if selected.
estimate the contributions of each of the efficiency factors Possibilities: Opportunities that can be implemented
(Fig. 1) to the expected Base recovery factor. The Eps may be economically using existing technology, or technology that
estimated from special core analysis data, Ed and Es from requires only incremental development. Possibilities are
surveillance and/or simulation data, and Ec from an subdivided into medium-term (1-5 years) and long-term (>5
understanding on the controls on end of field life. In cases years).
where such data are insufficient for example fields very Barrier Opportunities: These require a step change in
early in their life cycle efficiency factor values can be technology or commercial framework (e.g. license extension).
estimated with the help of the RTL Toolkit (Fig. 2). Here, This does not necessarily imply a lengthy timescale; although
typical efficiency factor ranges are provided for standard there must be a barrier to be in this grouping, it could be that
reservoir and recovery process types, and values are provided the barrier can be overcome quickly.
for a range of well known fields for guidance. Prioritization of the opportunities depends on a variety of
factors, such as volume, doability and probability of success.
4 SPE 109555

Options are not necessarily of a higher priority than reservoir complexity index, calibrated using relevant analogue
possibilities or even Barrier opportunities: some of the longer data. In Figure 5, the bottom-up recovery factors benchmark
term or more difficult opportunities may have long lead times well to the analogue trend lines. This indicates that the
or have a limited window of opportunity so that they may need recovery factors are reasonable when compared to analogue
urgent action in order for them eventually to generate new fields with similar recovery processes, well spacings and
reserves. complexities. In cases where there are significant
discrepancies, particularly where the recovery factors are high
Quality Control. The opportunities are quality controlled in relative to the analogue data, the opportunity volumes may be
other words checked that they are internally consistent and adjusted (decreased) until they are more in keeping with the
reasonable compared to other fields in two ways: using an analogues.
efficiency factor check and by comparison with analogue data.
Internal consistency check. A simple check can be done Data capture and follow-up. The data describing the
using efficiency factor analysis. Firstly, the volumes expected opportunity set plus the relevant background data on the field
to be added for the Options, Possibilities and Barrier are captured in a consistent format with built-in graphics and
opportunities can be summed, divided by the oil in place, and summary tables that illustrate the opportunities and help
converted into bottom-up estimates of recovery factors. Then, communicate the results to a wider audience. The data
the efficiency factors are estimated that would relate to the resulting from the RTL Review workshop can automatically
situations after having implemented the Options, Possibilities be uploaded into the global database.
and Barrier opportunities. This is done by assessing each The opportunity set feeds into a workflow called
opportunity, what efficiency factor it is designed to improve opportunity progression (Fig. 6), the first part of which is
and estimating by how much it will increase. This estimation often a more detailed screening process. The opportunities
need only be semi-quantitative; it can be guided by expert that make it through the fine screening are prioritized for
input from RTL Review participants who have experience of progression and become the subject of detailed technical work.
the application of similar opportunities in other fields. The The RTL review is only the first step, but it gives focus and
efficiency factors at each stage are multiplied out to give a impetus to the critical work that follows high quality
top-down estimate of the recovery factor (Fig. 3). Analysis of technical and commercial work that takes the opportunities
the efficiency factors is aided by a software tool whereby the and turns them into reality.
efficiency factor inputs are dynamically linked to graphics that
display the impact of the efficiency factor estimates (Fig. 4). Examples
The bottom-up and top-down estimates of recovery factor The refreshed opportunity set. The main output of the RTL
are compared graphically (Fig, 4). If they are similar, this process is an updated view of the full life-of-field
indicates that, within the uncertainty limits, there is opportunities that, when implemented, will take recovery
consistency between the description of the opportunity set factor to its technical limit. An example of a typical
(bottom-up), and the understanding of their impact on the opportunity set is shown in Figure 7, representing data from a
reservoir (top-down), giving confidence that the opportunity mature oil field. In this example the Base already includes
set is reasonable. Minor differences (as in Fig. 4) are likely to extensive conventional waterflooding and Enhanced Oil
be within the noise of this approach. However, sometimes Recovery (EOR) using miscible injection (MI) of hydrocarbon
large discrepancies have been identified at this stage, which gas.
may indicate problems such as opportunities that duplicate Options. The options identified were: (a) implementation
each other (i.e. producing the same barrels in two different of BPs LoSalTM low salinity waterflooding technology to
mutually exclusive ways), misunderstanding of the effect of an improve Eps; (b) water injection into the gas cap improving
activity on an efficiency factor, or even an unresolved problem the Ec by maintaining pressure and thus maintaining injectant
with defining the oil-in-place. Whenever such a discrepancy miscibility; and (c) improve the sweep (Es) of the MI by
is identified, this leads to an iteration of the process (for sidetracking MI injectors into optimal positions.
example deleting or merging competing opportunities) until Possibilities. The Possibilities involve expanding the
agreement is reached. RTL provides an excellent framework throughput of both LoSalTM and MI by tapping into new
for challenging overall volume estimates supplies of these injectants, resulting in improved sweep (Es)
External consistency check. BP has an extensive and field life extension (Ec).
reservoir performance benchmarking toolkit that will be Barrier opportunities. A rich vein of barrier opportunities
described in a later paper. This allows recovery factors for the includes: late life sale of gas from the gas cap; expansion of
field in question to be compared to carefully selected analogue the MI by using miscible CO2 gas; increased water handling
fields. A numerical estimation of reservoir complexity index capacity to extend field life to higher water cuts; use of Bright
(CI) is key to this; the process used has evolved from the early Water to improve waterflood sweep deep in the reservoir; and
work of Dromgoole and Speers (1997), now involving more extension of the MI to an new isolated part of the field. All of
sophisticated scoring and weighting methods. The CI allows these opportunities have technical barriers, but the fact that
different reservoirs to be compared on the same graph. Figure they are included as opportunities means that each barrier has
5 shows an example of this; here, individual analogue field an associated technology plan and a set of activities designed
data points have been removed and are instead represented by to overcome the barriers.
trend lines, constructed using an equation that expresses In most cases, many of the opportunities identified through
recovery factor as a function of the Eps, well spacing and a the RTL process will already have been present in the field
SPE 109555 5

depletion plan, though RTL might generate some new expertise and trained facilitation has proved highly effective
perspectives or activities associated with them. However in when the effort is channeled using the RTL toolkit.
virtually every RTL Review there are some new opportunities Key to this is the ability to deconstruct recovery factor into
that had not previously been identified. Some opportunities the four efficiency factors Porescale Displacement,
initially generated in this way are already contributing to Drainage, Sweep and Cut-offs with typical pre-screened
production. activities/technologies that are available to seed discussion on
what can be done to maximize each efficiency factor.
Repeat RTL Reviews reveal opportunity progression. The Innovation is good, but way-out ideas that are
RTL process is repeated at regular intervals, perhaps every 1-2 disconnected from reality or unsupported by understanding of
years depending on the field in question. Figure 8 shows an the reservoir are not good they distort the picture of what is
example from a mature North Sea oil field which has possible. The quality control measures implemented in RTL
undergone the RTL process 3 times over a 3-year period. This use a simple but effective method to ensure that unrealistic or
reveals an interesting pattern of opportunity identification and duplicate ideas are filtered out. These measures consist of (a)
progression during that period. Over the 3 years cumulative an internal consistency check that compares the bottom-up
production has of course increased. However the Base recovery factor (adding up the opportunity volumes) and the
(representing proved reserves) has more than kept pace with top-down recovery factor (estimating the efficiency factors
this, increasing significantly in 2005 as a direct result of and multiplying them out), and (b) comparison with analogue
Options and Possibilities identified in 2002/3 being progressed fields using an in-house performance benchmarking toolkit.
through to sanction and implementation. This does not mean The RTL process has been in operation for several years,
that the hopper of Options and Possibilities is becoming and an extensive database has built up of successful RTL
depleted; both actually rose in 2005, the result of Barrier Reviews. Before-versus-after comparisons show that in
opportunities identified in 2002/3 having been progressed and almost all cases new ideas are generated with the capability to
promoted from the Barrier category. Such progression occurs grow the resource. Where RTL reviews have been repeated
through implementation of the field technology plan and the trend continues, each time expanding the opportunity set
focused corporate R&D so that the technical barriers are through time as more is known about the reservoir and as
surmounted. technology evolves. There has been sufficient time to track
some opportunities from their conception in an RTL review,
Application of the global RTL database. The consistent into technology planning, technology development, field
format of the RTL outputs controlled by the RTL toolkit piloting through to production
facilitates the simple uploading of RTL data for each field into The global dataset represented by hundreds of RTL
a single database. The resulting global dataset is an incredibly reviews and thousands of individual opportunities each of
powerful tool that links possible future producible volumes to which links a technology and activity to a resulting resource
specific activities and to the application of specific volume is an extremely useful tool for planning R&D on a
technologies. Where technology advances are necessary, for variety of scales, from field and regional technology plans
example to unlock a group of barrier opportunities, it is through to corporate R&D prioritization.
possible to value the technology advancement based on the This paper has focused on the RTL process, but this is only
amount of resource it will generate. This helps to focus R&D the start. Opportunity identification through RTL has to be
resources onto the technologies that will have the greatest followed by efficient and effective opportunity progression.
global impact. Figure 9 illustrates the kind of analysis that is The RTL toolkit is designed to link seamlessly with the
available readily from the database. It shows a breakdown of opportunity progression toolkit that prioritizes the necessary
the technologies involved in the set of EOR-related Barrier work and tracks progress, so as to turn the ideas into reality
opportunities from one particular geographic region weighted
by the expected resource volume to be added by each Acknowledgements
technology. For a region, this kind of data is valuable for BP is thanked for permission to publish. Cliff Black and Gary
technology planning, for regional technology strategies and for Neville can be singled out for thanks for their help in devising
human resource planning and technical training. Looked at the RTL process. Numerous other colleagues too many to
globally, this type of data is key to efficient focusing of R&D mention have contributed to the conception, development
resources onto the technologies that in the future are likely to and implementation of the processes described herein. Their
produce the largest gain. work is much appreciated.

Conclusions References
In the quest to maximize recovery factors, Reservoir Technical Al-Bahar, M.A., Merrill, R., Peake, W., Jumaa, M., Oskui, R.
Limits is a valuable new approach. The RTL process is 2004. Evaluation of IOR Potential within Kuwait. SPE
designed to reach an optimal balance between the two 88716.
conflicting drivers: the need for innovation and creativity to Dawe, R.A. 2000. Reservoir Engineering. In Modern
generate new ideas; and the need for focus, discipline and Petroleum Technology, Volume 1 Upstream, ed. Dawe, R.A.
consistency so that the process is efficient and gives Institute of Petroleum, p207-282.
reproducible high-quality results. The combination of in- Dromgoole, P., Speers, R., 1997. Geoscore: A method for
field expert knowledge (the field team), global technical quantifying uncertainty in field reserve estimates. Petroleum
Geoscience v3, p1-12.
6 SPE 109555

Frampton, H., Morgan, J.C., Cheung, S.K., Munson, L.,


Chang, K.T., Williams, D., 2004. Development of a Novel
Waterflood Conformance Control System. SPE 89391
Jerauld, G.R., Lin, C.Y., Webb, K.J., Seccombe, J.C., 2006.
Modeling Low-Salinity Waterflooding. SPE 102239.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., Seright, R.S. 1997a. EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited - Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria
and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects. SPE 35385.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., Seright, R.S. 1997b. EOR Screening
Criteria RevisitedPart 2: Applications and Impact of Oil
Prices. SPE 39234.
Webb, K.J., Black, C.J.J., Al-Ajeel H., 2004. Low Salinity Oil
Recovery - Log-Inject-Log. SPE 89379.
Yaez, P.A.P, Mustoni, J.L., Relling, M.F., Chang, K.-T.,
Hopkinson, P., Frampton, H., 2007. New Attempt in
Improving Sweep Efficiency at the Mature Koluel Kaike and
Piedra Clavada Waterflooding Projects of the S. Jorge Basin in
Argentina. SPE 107923.
SPE 109555 7

Figures

Pore-scale Displacement: Eps


Saturation

Soinitial
Eps
Sofinal
1-Eps

Drainage: Ed
Fault

1-Ed Ed

1-Eps

Sweep: Es & Cut-offs: Ec

Cut-off
Es 1-Ec
1-Ed 1-Es Ec

1-Eps Time
Distance
Produced Remaining

Fig. 1Illustration of the efficiency factors, Porescale


Displacement (Eps), Drainage (Ed), Sweep (Es) and Cut-offs (Ec),
that are used to understand recovery factor and how it can be
increased.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Efficiency
OIL Factor
FIELD
Low quality Waterflood High quality
Efficiency No P support Depletion Strong P support Water-based EOR Miscible gas
Factor 0.72
Pore Scale Displacement
Guide Field 1
Field 2 Field 3 Field 5
Field 4
Field 7
Field 6
Field 8
Field 9
Field 10
Field 11

Wide Well spacing Close


Many Compartments None
Phased developments
0.88
Drainage Field 12 Field 14 Field 15 Field 16Field 17
Field 13 Field 18
RF =
75% Low Mobility High
30.4%
Shallow/BW Dip/Geometry Steep/edge
High Heterogeneity/Layering Low
0.50
Sweep Field 19 Field 20 Field 21 Field 22 Field 23 Field 25
Field 24

Complex Facilities Easy


Low Energy High
Short PSA Life of field
0.95
Cut-offs Field 26 Field 27 Field 28 Field 30
Field 29 Field 31

Fig. 2Screen shot from part of the RTL toolkit that aids efficiency
factor estimation. Typical ranges are shown for various
scenarios. Values for analogue fields are incorporated for
guidance (field names omitted). The efficiency factors are set
using the sliders. The resultant recovery factor is recalculated in
real time and is used to reality-check the efficiency factor values.
8 SPE 109555

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Eps

Ed

Es

Ec

RF

Base
Options
Possibilities
Barrier
Remaining

Fig. 3Typical efficiency factor values. The Base values represent


understanding of the reservoir at the time of the RTL review, and
include oil that has been produced already or results from
activities that have been committed to. The Options, Possibilities
and Barrier values relate to the efficiency factors expected to
result from each activity set. The recovery factor (RF) is the
product of the relevant efficiency factors.

1.0

0.8

0.6
RF

0.4
P B
S O
0.2

0.0

Fig. 4Screen shots of the tool used to perform an internal


consistency check of the opportunity volumes. The left panel
illustrates how the estimated efficiency factors are input for the
Base (S = Sanctioned), Options (O), Possibilities (P) and Barrier
opportunities (B). This panel is linked to the diagram on the right,
so that changing the efficiency factors changes the top-down
recovery factor shown by the columns accordingly. The small
horizontal lines represent the bottom-up recovery factors
calculated by adding up the opportunity volumes. If the bottom-
up and top-down RFs are similar, this indicates that the
opportunity descriptions are consistent with the understanding of
the field represented by the efficiency factor estimates.
SPE 109555 9

1.0

0.9
Recovery Factor

0.8

0.7
B

0.6 P
Barrier
O
Possibilities
B
0.5 Options
Base
RF
0.4

0.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Complexity Index
Fig. 5Recovery factors for the Base, Options, Possibilities and
Barrier compared to analogue-calibrated trend lines of recovery
factor v complexity index for fields with similar Eps (the y-
intercept) and well spacings. As more opportunities are
implemented the Eps increases due to EOR and the well spacing
decreases due to infill drilling. In this case the recovery factors
benchmark well.

Coarse Pre-Screening Fine Screening


All available Potential Opportunities Prioritised
technologies Opportunities Opportunities
9 9
9 9
RTLTM
RTLTM Progression
9 Progression
9 9
Opportunity w ork-up
Technology plans
9
Surveillance plans
Reservoir description etc
Fig. 6The overall workflow in which RTL is implemented.
Preliminary coarse pre-screening feeds potential opportunities
into the RTL Review. Opportunities that are taken up and quality
controlled in the RTL are then fine-screened afterward to prioritize
the opportunities for further work. These opportunities feed into
a tranche of technical work called Opportunity Progression.
10 SPE 109555

0.70 10
9
8 Opportunity set
10 MI in isolated segment
0.65 7
9 Bright Water
Recovery Factor

8 Increase water handling


7 EOR: CO2 injection
6 6 Gas Sales
0.60 5 Expanded LoSalTM
4 Additional MI source
5 3 MI sweep optimization
3 4
2 Gas Cap water injection
3
2
1 LoSalTM
0.55
1 Base

0.50
Base Options Possibilities Barrier

Fig. 7An RTL-derived opportunity set for a mature oilfield.


MI = Miscible hydrocarbon injection.

0.7

2002
2003
0.65 Depressurization
2005
Other
Microbial
Recovery Factor

0.6

0.55

Miscible
0.5 Repressur-
CO2 Bright LoSal TM
Immiscible Gas cap WI ization
gas Water
Enhanced waterflood
0.45
Produced Base Options Possibilities Barrier

Fig. 8Results from repeated RTL reviews over a 3 year period for Fig. 9A breakdown by volume of the potential EOR-related
a mature North Sea oil field, showing opportunity progression and Barrier opportunities for one geographical region (other
delivery of new reserves (increased Base). opportunities related to drilling, facilities, commercial etc are not
included). This illustrates the type of information that can be
derived from the global RTL database; it is valuable for
developing local technology plans and global R&D strategies.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi